whether the order of conversion of land passed by the Tahsildar under Kerala Land Tax Act would circumvent the provisions of beneficial legislations such as Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wetland Act, 2008 and the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967? = Apex court held that Section 18 cannot be made use or the same cannot be taken as a means to effect conversion of the nature of the land bye-passing the competent authority and the procedure stipulated under the KLU Order, 1967 and the Kerala Wetland Act, 2008 and the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.-2015 S.C.msklawreports


 whether the order of conversion of land passed by the  Tahsildar
under Kerala Land Tax Act would  circumvent  the  provisions  of  beneficial
legislations such as Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wetland Act, 2008  and
the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967? = 
Statutory enquiry to ascertain whether  the  land  is  a  "Paddy
Land" or "Wetland" and conversion of the land  for  residential  purpose  or
for any public purpose is governed by KLU Order or the Kerala  Wetland  Act,
2008 for conversion of the land from "Nilam" (Wetland) to  'Purayidam'  (Dry
Land).   The concerned authorities constituted under  KLU  Order  or  Kerala
Wetland Act 2008 are the competent authority.   Nature of  the  land  cannot
be changed or converted by directing  changes  in  the  Basic  Tax  Register
which is maintained only for the purpose of   land  tax.
Section 18 cannot be made use or the same cannot  be  taken  as  a
means to effect conversion  of  the  nature  of  the  land  bye-passing  the
competent authority and the procedure stipulated under the KLU  Order,  1967
and the Kerala Wetland Act, 2008 and the impugned  judgment  is   liable  to
be set aside.
The respondents in all the appeals are directed to approach  the
competent authorities constituted under KLU Order  1967/Kerala  Conservation
of Paddy Land and Wetland Act 2008 as the case may be for conversion of  the
land. = 2015 S.C. msklawreports

Popular posts from this blog

Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 - permission of court for selling minor property by natural guardian- In the present case, though it is stated that the property has been sold for the proper benefit of the minors, their protection, education and marriage,there is nothing on record to suggest that previous permission of the Court was obtained by the natural guardian before transfer by sale in question.-2015 S.C.(2013) MSKLAWREPORTS24

APEX COURT DIGEST 2016 - 1

Section 25(1) of the Customs Act-exempted from payment of customs duty and additional duty leviable under the Customs Tariff Act.-Under Notification No.17/2001, that the benefit of duty exemption is available only for the import of the plant in full either in CKD or SKD condition. - The subject import can be considered only as a part of the plant.-Therefore, the goods under import are not eligible for the duty exemption as provided under the Notification No.17/2001.-what was imported was not a hot mix plant but only certain parts of such plant and, therefore, the exemption notification would not apply. -It is settled law that statements made to an Officer of Customs are admissible in evidence under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962.In the present case, both the oral evidence and the documentary evidence ultimately lead to the same conclusion: namely, that what was imported was not a hot mix plant that was complete in itself. - But not an unassembled Hot Mix Plant -have no application to an exemption notification which is issued under Section 25 of the Customs Act. - 2015 S.C. MSKLAWREPROTS